LITHICS BASICS...2 LITHICS BASICS Archaeologists utilize four main sources of information about how...

2

LITHICS BASICS

Archaeologists utilize four main sources of information about how

stone tools were made and used. These include mechanical stud-

ies, experimental archaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and contextual clues

from the archaeological record. Mechanical studies investigate the spe-

cific physical processes involved in tool production and wear. Exper-

imental archaeology attempts to reproduce prehistoric tools and tool

uses under controlled conditions. Ethnoarchaeology develops mod-

els for archaeological lithic variability by studying stone tool use by

contemporary humans. Finally, contextual clues are patterns of asso-

ciation among stone tools and other residues in the archaeological

record. This chapter pulls together insights from these sources to pro-

vide a basic introduction to lithic technology. It reviews the main

descriptive categories of stone tools and their higher-order groupings

as recognized by archaeologists. It also provides a brief overview of

the major interpretive concepts in lithic analysis.

I. MECHANICS OF STONE TOOL TECHNOLOGY

Stone tools are shaped mainly by fracture and abrasion. Both of these

processes involve an objective piece being loaded by an indenter until

it “fails.” Archaeologists’ terms for conchoidal fracture products differ

from those used in mechanics (Table 2.1). In lithic technology, the

objective piece is called a core or a flake-tool. Force, or load, is

transmitted by a hammerstone. The fracture products are called flakes

or, collectively, debitage (French for “waste”).

17

terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 22 Apr 2020 at 00:39:59, subject to the Cambridge Core

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003

https://www.cambridge.org/core

18 STONE TOOLS IN THE PALEOLITHIC AND NEOLITHIC NEAR EAST

Table 2.1. Essential Concepts in Fracture Mechanics, Flintknapping, and Lithic Analysis

Definition Fracture Mechanics Flintknapping & Lithic Analysis

Object that transmits load Indenter Hammer, hammerstone, percussor

Object that fails under load Objective piece Core, flake-tool

Fracture product Detached piece Flake, flake fragment

Fracture

Fracture refers to a cleavage plane that forms when a brittle mate-

rial breaks. Most Paleolithic and Neolithic stone tools were shaped by

controlled conchoidal fracture. Conchoidal fractures form when com-

pressive loading stress exceeds the tensile and compressive strength of a

brittle material (Cotterell and Kamminga 1987). Conchoidal fractures

occur in rocks that are both brittle and isotropic. Isotropy is the quality

of responding to load equally in any direction.

Glass is a brittle isotropic material often used to research con-

choidal fracture. Much of what we know about the mechanical basis

of stone tool production comes from experiments investigating aspects

of conchoidal fracture mechanics in glass (for an overview, see Dibble

and Rezek 2009). Most of the conchoidally fracturing rocks shaped

by prehistoric humans were cryptocrystalline silicates, rocks consisting

mainly of quartz crystals that are too small to be seen with the naked

eye. The most common such rocks used in the Levant were chert

and flint, but prehistoric humans also used nonsilicate rocks (lime-

stone and basalt), as well as noncrystalline rocks (obsidian or volcanic

glass) and minerals (quartz crystals). Most lithic materials used as ham-

merstones are tough rocks, such as varieties of basalt, limestone, and

quartzite that resist fracture initiation.

Much of the variability in conchoidal fracture arises during the

initiation and termination of the fracture (Figure 2.1.a–b). Hertzian

initiations begin when compressive force from an indenter creates a

cone-like fracture (a “Hertzian cone”) on the surface of the core. This

fracture propagates under the side of the core, detaching itself with

the resulting flake. Bending initiations occur when the edge of a stone

artifact is loaded in such a way that the points of maximum com-

pressive and tensile stresses are separate from one another. When this



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 19

a. Fracture Initiations

b. Fracture Terminations

Hertzian Cone Bending Shear

Feather Step Hinge Plunging

Hammer

Core Flake

Core Flake

Indenter

Abraded

Surface

Unabraded

Surface

Objective Piece

AsperitiesGrit

c. Abrasion Mechanics

figure 2.1. Conchoidal fracture initiation (top) and termination (middle), and abra-

sion mechanics (bottom).

happens, a fracture can form in an area under tensile stress located some

distance from the point where the indenter comes in contact with

the objective piece. Shear initiations occur when compressive stress

creates a flat planar fracture directly under the indenter. Termination



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



occurs when an expanding flake intersects the surface of the core.

Fracture terminations are classified as “feather,” “step,” “hinge,” and

“plunging/overshot,” depending on their trajectories and shapes in

profile view. Fracture propagation (its length and trajectory) depends

on many factors, including the structure of the rock (large versus small

crystals, inclusions, and bedding planes) the morphology of the core

surface, the amount of load and the rate at which it is applied, and the

physical properties of the indenter and the degree to which the rock

sample was immobilized during fracture propagation.

Archaeologists employ two main sets of contextual clues when

reconstructing the specific patterns of fracture used in prehistory. The

first of these involves reconstructing fracture propagation trajectories

from the fissures, undulations, and other phenomena left on the frac-

ture surfaces. The second is refitting analysis in which archaeologists

reassemble artifacts split by fractures. Complex sets of such “refits” can

shed light on the sequence by which a rock was modified by successive

fractures.

Abrasion

Abrasion is damage that results from sliding contact between a rock and

another surface. This sliding contact creates compressive and bending

stresses on the small projections (“asperities”) on the stone surface

(Cotterell and Kamminga 1990: 151–159). As these projections are

dislodged, they are dragged across the stone surface, creating pits and

scratches (“striations”) that in turn create additional asperities (Figure

2.1c). Abrasion can be accelerated by several methods: (1) by slid-

ing the stone tool surface against harder, coarser materials; (2) by

introducing hard, angular grit or sand between the tool and another

surface; and (3) by using percussion or some other shaping process to

roughen and weaken the surface of the tool. Abrasion processes can

be altered by the addition of lubricating agents (e.g., water or oil) so

that a smoothed or “polished” surface is created. Such polished edges

lose less energy to friction during contact with worked materials,

improving their cutting effectiveness. In many parts of the world, the

edges of stone tools were (ground) polished to improve their cutting

effectiveness.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 21

Flintknapping

Many of the terms archaeologists use to describe stone tool production

are borrowed from flintknapping. Historic flintknappers were crafts-

men who produced gunflints, but flintknapping now refers to efforts

to make and use replicas of prehistoric stone tools (Whittaker 1994).

Francois Bordes (1969), Louis Leakey (1960), Don Crabtree (1972),

and other twentieth-century archaeologists often described their own

flintknapping and tool use experiments and used their impressions of

the results to guide archaeological interpretations ( Johnson 1978). The

most archaeologically important flintknapping terms refer to different

methods for initiating fractures (Figure 2.2). Hard-hammer and soft-

hammer percussion refer to fracture initiation achieved by striking a

core with an indenter made of either stone or metal (“hard-hammer”)

or bone, antler, or wood (“soft-hammer”). Pressure flaking refers to

fracture initiation by slowly increasing loading with either a hard or soft

indenter. Indirect percussion is a technique in which a knapper initi-

ates a fracture by using a punch to focus energy from a hammerstone

or some other percussor. Bipolar percussion involves initiating shear

fractures by crushing a core between two stones. The anvil technique

involves a knapper striking a core against a stationary stone percussor.

Modern-day flintknappers often use thermal alteration (“heat

treatment”) to improve the fracture and abrasion properties of a rock.

Heating crystalline silicate rocks to 400–500◦C and then slowly cool-

ing them causes cracks to form in quartz crystals (Beauchamp and

Purdy 1986, Inizan and Tixier 2000). These cracks weaken the rock,

reducing the amount of force necessary to initiate and propagate a

fracture. When such heat-treated rocks are knapped, fractures that

would otherwise have passed around rock crystals instead propagate

through them. Consequently, freshly knapped surfaces of heat-treated

rocks are more brightly reflective (lustrous) than samples of the same

rock that have not been thermally altered. Thermal alteration also

usually changes the color of the rock, but this quality varies with

rock chemistry. Until recently, thermal treatment was thought to be

a recent (i.e., Late Pleistocene or Holocene age) phenomenon, but

the practice is now known from later Middle Pleistocene contexts in

southern Africa (Brown et al. 2009).



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



II. KEY DESCRIPTIVE CONCEPTS IN

ARCHAEOLOGICAL LITHIC ANALYSIS

Archaeological lithic analysis uses specialized terminology to describe

stone tools and lithic variability (Brezillon 1977, Inizan et al. 1999).

The following sections review the terms and related concepts from

lithic analysis that are germane to Levantine Paleolithic and Neolithic

stone tools.

Basic Terms for Lithic Artifacts

Most stone tools are created by initiating a fracture in a piece of rock

by striking it with a hammerstone (Figure 2.3). The pieces of rock

detached by conchoidal fracture are called flakes, and the rock from

which they are detached is called a core. Archaeologists often use the

French term debitage to refer collectively to unretouched flakes and

flake fragments. Retouched tools are flakes or other detached pieces

whose edges feature contiguous and overlapping clusters of small flake

scars (retouch). Flintknappers retouch edges either to change the shape

of the edge or to resharpen an edge dulled from use. Many archae-

ologists use the terms “tools” and “retouched tools” synonymously,

even though ethnography and microwear analysis of archaeological

specimens all show that people used flakes without retouching them.

Some archaeologists also distinguish cores with seemingly use-related

retouch and/or wear on some part of their circumference as “core-

tools.”

To depict stone tools, lithic analysts have preferred to use line art or

drawings instead of photography. This is because many stone tools are

either highly reflective or partly translucent. Digital image processing

is leading to the increased use of photography, but the overwhelming

majority of stone tools are shown in the archaeological literature as

line drawings (see Box 2.1).

The major categories of archaeological stone tools are pounded

pieces, cores, flakes and flake fragments, retouched tools, or ground-

stone tools.

Pounded Pieces

Pounded pieces are artifacts shaped by percussion. The damage caused

by this percussion is called comminution – multiple overlapping,



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 23

a. Hard hammer percussion b. Soft hammer percussion

c. Anvil techniqued. Bipolar technique

e. Indirect percussion f. Pressure flaking

figure 2.2. Knapping techniques.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



Hammerstone

Fracture

Propagation

Fracture Termination

Flake

Point of Fracture Initiation

Core

Percussion

or

Pressure

Flake Ventral Surface

(Fresh Fracture Surface)Flake Dorsal Surface

(Former Core Exterior)

Retouch

Cortex

Flake

Profile

1

2

3

Flake Production

Retouch

figure 2.3. Knapping basics: flake production (top), retouch (bottom).

intersecting, and incompletely propagated fractures. Hammerstones

and pitted stones are the most common archaeological pounded pieces.

Hammerstones are usually spherical or subspherical and weigh less

than 2 kg. Their most distinctive features are convex or flat con-

centrations of crushing and other damage resulting from their use as

indenters against other rocks. Hammerstones used by modern



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 25

BOX 2.1 LITHIC ILLUSTRATION

All of the artifact illustrations in this book are redraftings of original

artwork from other sources. The literary source and (where possi-

ble) original archaeological provenience of each illustrated artifact

are indicated in the figure caption. To interpret these drawings, one

must understand basic archaeological conventions for drawing and

orienting lithic artifacts.

Conventions for drawing lithic artifacts follow most of the

principles set forth in Addington (1986) (see Figure 2.4). Cortex-

covered surfaces of cores and flakes are indicated by patterns of ink

dots called stippling. The edges of fracture scars on core and flake

surfaces are indicated by solid lines. These lines begin and end at

either the edge of the artifact, another fracture scar outline, or the

edge of a cortical surface.

In schematic drawings of cores and flakes, fracture directional-

ity is indicated by placing arrows on the flake scars. Arrows with

a circle at the bottom indicate a flake scar that retains the negative

impression of a Hertzian cone. Simple arrows indicate that a flake

scar lacks a visible point of fracture initiation, but that its prop-

agation trajectory can be inferred from undulations and fissures.

Cross-section drawings are indicated in outline and by a solid gray

filling. In some cases, a hybrid profile/section drawing on which

the working edge is indicated by a thick black line running across

the section view is used. Lateral breaks are indicated by sets of

short lines at either end of the break and extending away from

the drawing in the direction that the complete artifact would have

extended. Solid black filling indicates ground and polished surfaces

on cores and retouched flakes. Burin removals (see main text) are

indicated by arrows pointing to their point of fracture initiation.

This work differs from most conventional drawings of lithic

artifacts in that it does not fill flake scars with radial lines. Most

formal drawings of cores and flake points use a series of concentric

radial lines to indicate the direction of fracture propagation. The

convex sides of these lines bulge away from the inferred point of

fracture initiation. The extent and spacing of radial lines are also

used to convey an impression of shading and three-dimensionality.

Radial lines are not used in this book for three reasons. First,



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



scar directionality can usually be indicated when necessary by a

single arrow. This follows Edward Tufte’s (1990) guiding principle

for scientific illustration: “maximum information, minimum ink.”

Secondly, by not cluttering artifact drawings with radial lines, the

resulting images are more similar to how lithic artifacts actually

appear. Finally, there is so much variability in the ways in which

different artists use radial lines, not using them establishes a stylistic

consistency for the illustrations in this book.

Stone tools are shown in standardized orientations in drawings

and photographs. This allows lithic analysts to use a standard set of

terms (i.e., dorsal, ventral, distal, proximal, medial, lateral, etc.) for

analogous parts of tools. Unretouched flakes are shown with their

striking platform in the proximal position (see main text). Cores are

shown with their longest axis usually treated as the distal-proximal

axis and the least modified of their surfaces treated as the ventral

surface. Retouched tools that still retain remnants of their dorsal

and ventral surfaces are oriented the same way as unretouched

flakes. Retouched tools that no longer retain evidence of a striking

platform are oriented with their longest morphological axis aligned

disto-proximally. A few exceptions to these orientations reflect

pre-existing archaeological conventions. In the illustrations for this

book, the proximal part of the tool is placed in the lowermost (“6

o’clock”) position.

Most artifacts are drawn in at least two views. Minimally, these

usually are a plan view of the dorsal face and either a profile

(side) view or a cross-section. This is done to give an impression

of the artifact’s three-dimensional shape. Short lines positioned at

either the sides or ends of drawings indicate different views of the

same object. Profile/section views are arranged around plan views

so that the dorsal face remains closest to the corresponding edge

of the plan view (i.e., the “American” convention) (Aprahamian

2001). Ventral flake surfaces are rarely illustrated unless they are

retouched and unless they differ from the dorsal surface in some

significant way. A five- or ten-centimeter scale indicates artifact

size. Wherever possible in this work, illustrations of actual artifacts

have been reproduced at full (100%) scale. The principal exceptions

to this are for relatively large core tools.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 27

The particular artifacts illustrated in this work were selected

for their representative value. That is, a conscious effort was made

to find objects that were typical for a given artifact-type and for

artifacts from a wide range of contexts.

5 cm

Photograph

(Dorsal plan view)Scar borders,

directionality

& cortex

Radial Lines

Distal profile

Right

lateral

profileStriking platform

plan view

Sagital

cross-section

Medio-lateral

cross-section

Photograph

(Dorsal plan view)

Scar borders,

directionality Radial lines

figure 2.4. Conventions for illustrating flaked stone artifacts.

flintknappers often exhibit one or more discrete patches of com-

minution. Hammerstones used for repetitive pounding on flat surfaces

(as occurs when shaping non-conchoidally fracturing rocks by per-

cussion) often exhibit a ring of comminution running around their

circumference. This damage is the result of the hammerstone being

rotated axially during use. Pitted stones (also called “anvils”) are usually



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



tabular or plano-convex in cross section. Their most distinctive features

are one or more sizeable concavities formed by repeated percussion

and the resulting crushing damage.

Cores

Cores are rocks featuring concavities left by the flake detachment

(“flake scars”) above a certain size threshold (Figure 2.5). Most archae-

ologists require there to be at least one flake scar longer than 20 mm

for an artifact to be considered a core. The working edges of most

cores are defined by the presence of two intersecting surfaces, a strik-

ing platform surface and a flake-release surface. The striking platform

surface is the one on which fractures are initiated. The flake-release

surface is one beneath which fractures propagate. Many cores were

selected for use from nodules excavated from bedrock or clasts (rocks

rounded by alluvial processes). Both rocks are covered by weathered

surfaces called cortex. As cores are reduced, the proportion of their

surface covered by cortex decreases.

The major core types associated with particular phases of Levan-

tine prehistory are discussed in Chapters 3 through 7. For making

comparisons between cores from different periods, this book employs

a core typology recently proposed by Conard and colleagues (2004).

This typology recognizes three major core types (inclined, parallel,

and platform), each of which has distinctive geometric and techno-

logical characteristics (Table 2.2). On inclined cores, flake-release and

striking platform surfaces are interchangeable and exploited roughly

equally. Parallel cores have a hierarchy of flake-release and striking plat-

form surfaces that are exploited differently. Platform cores have flakes

removed in succession from only one flake-release surface. Although

originally intended for use in describing whole artifacts, the key dif-

ferences in this simplified core typology are applicable to individual

working edges (Figure 2.6). In theory, a single artifact could preserve

worked edges exhibiting more than one of these configurations. It

is also important to remember that individual cores may have shifted

from one to another of these typological categories prior to being

discarded.

Flakes and Flake Fragments

Flakes and flake fragments are products of conchoidal fracture. Most

flakes and flake fragments are divided by the fracture plane into a



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 29

Striking Platform Surface

Flake Release

SurfaceCortex

Point of fracture initiation visible

Point of fracture initiation missing

Flake Scars

Flake Scar

Ridge (Arris)

figure 2.5. Core landmarks.

freshly fractured ventral surface and a dorsal surface that contains part

of the former outer surface of a core (Figure 2.7). For purposes of

description and orientation, the point of fracture initiation is said to

be the “proximal” end of the flake. On a flake detached by Hertzian

fracture initiation, this point can easily be identified by the presence

of the Hertzian cone. As the fracture propagates away from its ini-

tiation point, the ventral surface becomes convex and then grows

progressively flatter. The convex part of the ventral surface nearest

the point of fracture initiation is called the bulb of percussion, or the

bulbar eminence. Linear features, called “fissures” (or “lances”), and

undulations on the ventral surface radiate away from the point of frac-

ture initiation. If a Hertzian cone is absent, or if the striking platform

is missing, lances/fissures and undulations provide additional clues to

the point of fracture initiation.

The dorsal side of a flake is usually subdivided into a striking

platform and the rest of the dorsal surface. The striking platform is

the surface impacted by the hammerstone at the moment of fracture

initiation. Its external platform angle intersects at 90◦ or less with the



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



Table 2.2. A Simplified Core Taxonomy (After Conard et al 2004, 14, Table 1)

Characteristic Inclined Parallel Platform

Position of main

flake-release

surface(s).

Broad surface Broad surface Usually not a broad

surface.

Geometry and

number of

flake-release

surfaces.

Volume defined

by two surfaces

Volume defined

by two surfaces

Volume defined by

more than two

surfaces

Angle of removals

relative to the plan

of intersection

defined by the

worked edge and

flake-release

surfaces.

Roughly 45◦ Less than 30◦ Not applicable

Removal angle

relative to the

striking platform.

Not applicable Not applicable Greater than 45◦

Orientation of

removals on the

main flake-release

surface(s).

Converge toward

the center of the

removal surface(s)

Multiple

possibilities

Parallel

Origin of removals. All removals

originate from the

circumference

defined by the

intersection of the

two surfaces.

All removals

originate from the

circumference

defined by the

intersection of the

two surfaces.

Main removals from a

well-defined

striking platform

surface(s).

rest of the dorsal surface opposite the point of fracture initiation. Its

interior platform angle (between the striking platform and the ven-

tral surface) is usually greater than 90◦. Archaeologists usually note

whether the striking platform surface is cortical, plain, dihedral, or

facetted because these conditions provide insights into core prepara-

tion. As with cores, archaeologists usually note whether the dorsal side

of a flake has cortex and flake scars/ridges indicating previous flake

removals.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 31

Inclined Core

Parallel Core

Platform Core

1

2

34

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

figure 2.6. Working edges of major core types (inclined, parallel, platform) viewed

in cross-section.

Left

Lateral

Edge

Right

Lateral

Edge

Distal

Proximal

Medial

Dorsal VentralProfile

Striking Platform

External

Platform

Angle

Internal

Platform

Angle

Flake Scar

Flake Scar Ridge

Fissures

Undulations

Point of

Fracture

Initiation

Bulb of Percussion

5 cm

figure 2.7. Flake landmarks.

Most classifications of unretouched whole flakes distinguish among

cortical and non-cortical flakes, core-trimming elements, and blades

(Figure 2.8). Cortical flakes are whole flakes with some remnant cortex

on their dorsal surface. Greater proportions of cortical flakes and flake



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



fragments in an archaeological lithic assemblage are thought to reflect

initial stages of core reduction. Cobble fragments are cortical flakes

that result from shear fracture of pebbles or cobbles.

Core-trimming elements (CTE) preserve a substantial part of a

core’s worked edge on parts of its dorsal surface other than in the

immediate vicinity of the point of fracture initiation – that is, on the

lateral or distal edges or the medial part of the dorsal surface. Some

CTEs may reflect efforts to reshape, rejuvenate, or otherwise maintain

a flake-release surface. Others may reflect knapping errors. CTEs are

particularly valuable for research on prehistoric technological strategies

because they reflect solutions to complex knapping problems (Boeda,

Geneste, and Meignen 1990).

Blades are flakes whose lengths are at least twice that of their widths.

“Prismatic blades” are blades with straight lateral edges and dorsal

flake scar ridges aligned disto-proximally. Historically, archaeologists

have viewed prismatic blade production as a complex task worthy

of particular notice, but recent years have seen challenges to this

consensus (Bar-Yosef and Kuhn 1999). A bladelet is a blade whose

length is greater than or equal to twice its length, but not more than

50 mm long and whose maximum width is not more than12 mm.

When they are described at all, flake fragments are usually divided

into proximal, medial, distal, or lateral fragments (Sullivan and Rozen

1985). Unretouched flakes and flake fragments less than 20–25 mm

long and considered too small to have been used as implements while

held in the hand are often described as “debris.” Whole flakes less

than 20–35 mm long are sometimes described as “chips.”

Retouch and Retouched Tools

The terminology for describing retouch varies somewhat between

different phases of Levantine prehistory, but there are some consisten-

cies (Figure 2.9). For most researchers, retouch, to be recognized as

such, must run continuously for at least a centimeter along the edge of

a tool, and it must extend onto a tool surface for more than 2–3 mm.

Retouch can occur on one side of an edge (unifacial retouch) or

both sides (bifacial retouch). The most common kind of retouch is

unifacial retouch, which is usually located on the dorsal side of a flake.

When unifacial retouch occurs on the ventral side of a flake, it is called

“inverse retouch.” When unifacial retouch creates a relatively sharp



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 33

ab c

de

f g h

figure 2.8. Major flake types. a. non-cortical flake, b. cortical flake, c. core-trimming

flake-lateral, d. core-trimming flake-distal, e. core-trimming flake-medial, f. blade,

g–h. prismatic blades.

edge (<70◦), it is often called “scraper retouch.” Backing is unifacial

retouch with a steep edge-angle (>70◦) located on the lateral edge

of a flake. Truncation is backing applied to either the distal or the

proximal end of a flake. Notching is unifacial retouch that creates a

single large concavity on an edge. Denticulation is retouch formed by

a series of small regularly or irregularly spaced concavities. Notching

and denticulation grade into one another, with intermediate forms

sometimes identified as “multiple notches.” Invasive retouch is either

unifacial or bifacial retouch that extends more than 10 mm onto a

flake surface. Burination is a form of retouch in which a flake is

struck from a point or projection along the periphery of a flake so

that the resulting fracture propagates parallel to an edge and more or



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



truncation

backingscraper

retouch

invasive

retouchinverse

(ventral)

retouch

bifacial retouchburination

notch

multiple notch/

denticulation denticulation

burin

spalls

figure 2.9. Retouch types.

less perpendicularly to the plane formed by the intersection of dorsal

and ventral flake surfaces. The term burin (French for “chisel” or

“engraving tool”) refers to both the resulting scar pattern and the tool

itself. The narrow elongated flake detached by this form of retouch is

called a burin spall.

Retouched tools are flakes that have been modified by one or more

kinds of retouch (Figure 2.10.a–j). Scrapers are flakes with at least one

unifacially retouched edge that is less than 70◦ in profile. Truncations

are flakes with a steeply retouched edge at either their distal or proximal

end. Backed knives are flakes with steep unifacial retouch on their

lateral edge. Awls are flakes with two relatively short retouched edges

that converge to a point. Points are bilaterally symmetrical triangular



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 35

Scraper Truncation Backed Knife

Awl/PerforatorPoint

Limace Foliate Point Notch DenticulateBurin

"dorsal"(false ventral)

ventral

Core-on-Flake "Janus"/Kombewa Flake

Ad hoc hammerstone on flake"Utilized" Flake

"Scaled piece"

a b c d e

f gh

i j

k l

n

m o

figure 2.10. Retouched tool types and problematical pieces. a. scraper, b. truncation,

c. backed knife, d. awl/perforator, e. point, f. limace, g. foliate point, h. notch, i. den-

ticulate, j. burin, k. core-on-flake, l. “Janus”/Kombewa flake, m. ad hoc hammerstone

on flake, n. “scaled piece,” o. “utilized” flake.

flakes with retouched lateral edges that converge at their distal end.

Foliate points (also known as foliate bifaces) are relatively thin pointed

tools covered wholly or partly by invasive retouch. Limaces (French for

“slug”) are flakes with steeply retouched lateral edges that converge

at both distal and lateral ends. Burins are flakes with one or more

burin scars on them. Notches are flakes with one or more notched

edges. Denticulates are flakes with one or more denticulated edges.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



Composite tools are retouched tools that combine the properties of

more than one of these retouched tool types (e.g., scraper-perforator,

burin-awl).

Problematical Artifacts

Some artifacts fit into more than one of the four major categories

of lithic artifacts described in the previous subsection (see Figure

2.10.k–o).

Core-tools are cores on which retouch has been applied to one or

more edges. The key factor in differentiating these artifacts from cores

is whether the retouch is focused on a discrete part of the tool edge. If

not, then these fractures are usually interpreted as incidental damage

accumulated in the course of flake production.

Cores-on-flakes are flakes that have had one or more relatively large

scars detached from them, reflecting their use as cores. In principle,

cores-on-flakes could be treated as cores, flake fragments, or retouched

flakes. Most analysts treat them as cores. When the ventral surface of

a flake was used as a flake-release surface, the resulting core and flake

(which can appear to have two ventral faces) is called either a “Janus

flake/core” (after the Roman god with two faces) or a “Kombewa

flake” after a village in Kenya where early examples of these artifacts

were observed (Leakey 1936).

Ad hoc hammerstones are cores, flakes, flake fragments, and

retouched tools that exhibit crushing, fractures, and other damage

from use as a hammerstone. These artifacts are not usually classi-

fied as hammerstones, but instead as cores, flakes, flake fragments, or

retouched tools incidentally damaged by use.

Scaled pieces (outils ecaillees or pieces esquillees in French) are flake

fragments with one or more concentrations of invasive flake scars

on dorsal and/or ventral surfaces. Scaled pieces are often treated as

retouched tools, but similar kinds of damage can result from flake pro-

duction (e.g., from using bipolar percussion on a flake or flake frag-

ment) and from use (from using a stone flake as a wedge to split wood).

They are increasingly viewed as byproducts of mechanical damage

during tool use rather than as a deliberately shaped tool.

Utilized flakes preserve microfracturing along their edge that is

thought to be too small and/or unpatterned to be retouch but large

enough to indicate use-related damage. Such edge-damage usually



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 37

extends no more than between 2–3 mm onto the dorsal or ventral side

of an edge. Earlier descriptions of lithic assemblages often list utilized

flakes as a distinct artifact-type. This practice is less common in more

recent studies, reflecting a growing recognition that trampling, soil

compaction, and other factors unrelated to tool use can create similar

edge damage.

Groundstone Tools

Groundstone tools – artifacts shaped by carving and abrasion – often

used alternation with percussion. The principal categories of ground-

stone tools are pulverizing equipment (grinding slabs, querns, hand-

stones, mortars, pestles, etc.) used to process seeds, mineral pig-

ments and other substances, celts (core-tools with polished working

edges), stone vessels, and a variety of other perforated and incised

objects. (Groundstone tools are rare in all but the latest Paleolithic and

Neolithic contexts and are discussed more fully in Chapters 6 and 7.)

Higher-Order Groupings of Lithic Artifacts

Higher-order groupings of stone tools consist of a hierarchy of tech-

nological and typological characteristics, artifact-types, assemblage-

groups/industries, and industrial complexes.

Groups of lithic artifacts that share similar morphological charac-

teristics are called artifact-types. The attributes and variables archaeol-

ogists use to define artifact-types are usually divided into technological

and typological characteristics. Technological characteristics are those

related to choices of techniques and methods used in tool production.

For example, the overall size of an artifact, the degree to which it

has cortex, and its retouch reflect the choices of the raw material and

the extent to which it has been modified. Typological characteristics

reflect the imposition of arbitrary shape. Whether the tool is round,

square, or triangular in plan view; whether retouch is unifacial or

bifacial; and whether there are any patterns in the alignment of scars

on the surfaces of the tool reflect choices toolmakers made among

a range of functionally equivalent design options. Technological

variables are generally thought to reflect differences in human adap-

tation, whereas typological variables are thought to reflect cultural

differences among prehistoric toolmakers. This technology/typology



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



dichotomy, however, is a false one. Technological choices (such as

whether to use a particular tool or to retouch it) can reflect cultural

differences, and variation in knapping techniques can influence tool

morphology.

Lithic assemblages are groups of stone tools found in the same

archaeological context. When more than one assemblage share similar

inventories of artifact-types, they are often described as assemblage-

groups or “industries” (Clarke 1978). Industries from more than one

major geographic region that differ typologically but share similar

technological characteristics are called “industrial complexes.”

Prehistorians use the term “culture” for lithic assemblage groups

very sparingly. It is more common in Epipaleolithic and Neolithic

periods when either (1) patterns of lithic typological variation are

paralleled in other kinds of archaeological evidence, such as ceram-

ics, architecture, bone tools, or personal adornments; or (2) varia-

tion in these other lines of evidence carry greater analytical weight

than the lithic evidence. Archaeologists also use the term “tradition”

for chronologically sequential assemblage-groups between which they

perceive strong typological similarities. The terms “culture” and

“tradition” imply that archaeological assemblage-groups correspond

closely to social divisions among prehistoric humans. The terms

“industry” and “industrial complex” have no such implications; they

merely indicate similarities in prehistoric human adaptation related to

stone tool technology.

Artifact-types and industries are often given proper names, usually

derived from the site at which they were first identified. For example,

the terms “Mousterian point” and “Mousterian Industry” are both

derived from the French rockshelter, Le Moustier, where examples

of Mousterian tools were first identified. Less commonly, the name

for an artifact or an assemblage-group may be taken from a region

in which the artifact or industry occurs, such as “Nubian core” or

“Levantine Mousterian Industry.”

Prehistorians often use type-lists and a variety of technological

and typological indices to quantify inter-assemblage lithic variability.

Type-lists differ between time periods. Appendix 1 provides type-lists

for each of the major prehistoric periods discussed in this book. Most

indices of lithic variability are simple ratios of one or more groups

of artifact-types divided by some larger number of artifacts in an

excavated lithic assemblage. These indices vary from period to period,



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 39

and there are significant differences among researchers both in how

these indices are computed and in how heavily they are weighted in

debates about inter-assemblage variability. There are also indices based

on metric variation among artifacts, also varying in computation and

analytical use.

Ratio-scale measurements increase the quality of archaeological

data and improve the kinds of hypotheses about prehistoric behavioral

variability one can test with this evidence. Appendix 2 provides a

guide to common measurements made on major groups of artifacts.

III. INTERPRETIVE CONCEPTS IN LITHIC ANALYSIS

Archaeologists have developed numerous theoretical concepts for

interpreting variation among stone tools (Andrefsky 2005, Inizan

et al. 1999, Odell 2004). Before delving into the details of the Lev-

antine lithic evidence, it is important to define and discuss the most

important of these concepts.

Stone artifacts come to us as static entities, but they are products of

dynamic behavioral processes. Linking static lithics to dynamic behav-

ior requires one to correlate patterns of variation in the lithic record to

variability in behavioral strategies. Strategies are solutions to a specific

set of problems determined by the interaction of costs, benefits, and

risks on evolutionary actors (Krebs and Davies 1991, Pianka 1988).

Modeling strategic variation involves hypotheses about the changing

relationship between cost and benefit over time. The three most fun-

damental of these relationships are optimization (maximizing benefits

per unit of cost), satisficing (obtaining minimally necessary benefits

per unit of cost), and intensification (increasing costs in return for

unchanging or declining benefits). The precise currencies of costs and

benefits involved in various dimensions of lithic variability and how to

measure them are much debated. Time, energy, and risk are obvious

variables (Torrence 1989, 2001), as they are for nearly all behavior, but

other factors specific to stone tool technology involve utility (poten-

tial for continued use), versatility (potential for multiple uses), and

portability (costs associated with transporting lithic artifacts).

Lithic artifacts pose some unique obstacles for strategic modeling.

Unlike food or reproductive opportunities (the usual currencies of

behavioral and evolutionary ecological models), the benefits of lithic

technology are durable and transferable. That is, once a stone tool is



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



made, it can be used by individuals other than its original author for

years, decades, centuries, or millennia. Thus, the forms in which stone

tools come to us from the archaeological record, both as an individual

artifact and as artifacts in complex patterns of association, can reflect a

complex overlay of individual strategic choices. In this, stone tools are

like palimpsests, Medieval parchment manuscripts erased and written-

over many times.

Human behavior involving stone tools can be broken down into

four major problems, each calling for different strategic solutions.

These are raw material procurement, tool production, tool use, and

discard/recycling. Many of the interpretive concepts archaeologists use

to understand these behaviors are problematical, either because they

dichotomize a complex continuum of behavioral variability or because

they uncritically project what are likely recent aspects of technological

variability into prehistoric contexts.

Raw Material Procurement

In writing about the procurement of lithic raw materials, archae-

ologists usually distinguish between local materials (those available

within a day’s walk of a site), and exotic materials available from fur-

ther afield. Strategies for procuring lithic raw materials are discussed

in terms of embedded and direct procurement (Binford 1982, Kuhn

1995). In embedded procurement, small quantities of raw materials are

gathered in the course of daily foraging activities. In direct procure-

ment, lithic materials are gathered in bulk from specific sources and

transported to sites where they are modified and used. Archaeologists

often equate local lithic materials with embedded procurement and

exotic lithic materials with direct procurement. Reality can compli-

cate these dichotomies. It is reasonable to assume that transporting

lithic materials over great distances increased selective pressure for

collecting high-quality materials. Consequently, archaeologists often

assume that high-quality rocks represented in small quantities in a lithic

assemblage are exotic. Although this might be correct, one needs to

be alert to the possibility that they are local materials available only in

small quantities. Similarly, embedded and direct procurement do not

exhaust the range of strategies humans use to acquire lithic raw mate-

rials. Predictable patterns of residential site location and stable social



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 41

relationships create incentives for more complex trade and exchange

patterns, such as emissary trade and down-the-line exchanges. The

Neolithic and later phases of Southwest Asian prehistory offer abun-

dant evidence for such complex exchange strategies (Cann, Dixon,

and Renfrew 1969).

In recent literature, archaeologists often draw a distinction between

strategies for provisioning places and provisioning people with tools

and raw materials (Kuhn 1993). Provisioning places involves trans-

porting artifacts and lithic materials to habitation sites. The benefits

of this strategy are contingent, delayed, and transferable. They accrue

with prolonged and recurrent site occupations and persons other than

those transporting materials can benefit from them. Provisioning peo-

ple involves the creation and transport of personal gear. Provisioning

people yields immediate benefits, and they are to a limited degree

transferable, but they also entail costs, such as designing tools with

high potential utility and functionally versatile designs. Archaeologists

sometimes link particular types of stone tools to one or another of these

strategies, but the actual relationship is almost certainly more complex.

In large part, this is because strategic costs and benefits are continu-

ously variable. An artifact that might make an appropriate choice as

transported personal gear in one context might be prohibitively costly

under a different set of circumstances. For example, while it might

make sense to transport a two-kilogram core of high quality rock into

a region impoverished in flint, this would be a poor strategic choice

for a residential movement into a region where flint is underfoot

nearly everywhere. Further complicating matters, traditional archae-

ological lithic systematics rarely distinguish artifacts on the basis of

their size or mass, variables that are clearly germane to assessing their

potential utility. Similarly, it is rare to see lithic raw materials described

to greater precision than major rock types, such as flint/chert, lime-

stone, basalt, or obsidian. There is, however, tremendous variation

within each of these rock types, which affects their suitability for

stone tool production.

Tool Production

Stone tools with useful cutting edges can be made in a matter of sec-

onds or carefully knapped over the course of hours or longer periods.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



Archaeologists use the term “expedient” for the former tool-pro-

duction strategy and “curated” for the latter. “Curation” can be

confusing because it conflates optimization and intensification (Shott

1996). Unnecessarily prolonged effort in tool production is a kind of

intensification. Knapping in the service of recovering more potential

utility from a given mass of stone is a form of optimization. It can

be difficult to distinguish between the effects of intensification and

optimization in the lithic record, because one can curate a stone tool

by carefully shaping it to improve its functional efficiency, by resharp-

ening it, by modifying it for novel uses, by transporting it, or by some

combination of these activities.

In thinking about stone tool production, it is also crucially impor-

tant to be alert to projecting modern-day habits of thought onto

prehistory. For example, proponents of operational chain approaches

to lithic analysis often dichotomize stone tool production in terms of

faconnage (shaping a core-tool) and debitage (the production of flakes

intended for use as tools) (see Inizan et al. 1999). No matter how

well this dichotomy describes the thought processes of modern-day

flintknappers and lithic analysts, it is a false dichotomy. The flakes

detached in the course of shaping a core tool remain potentially useful

tools (with or without subsequent modification) and the cores pro-

duced by flake production retain potentially useful cutting edges and

surfaces.

That the stone tools we find are overwhelmingly ones made by

adults in the service of their various economic and ecological adapta-

tions is probably another backward projection of a recent (and largely

Western) categorical distinction between adult work and child’s play

(Shea 2006a). Children are involved in tool production in many parts

of the world today, and even where they are not, children learn many

technical skills by imitation. Although it may be possible to differen-

tiate the lithic output of children and other novice knappers in more

complex lithic production sequences (Pigeot 1990), its presence may

remain undetectable in simpler aspects of stone tool production.

Similarly, and although it is the case that ethnographic stone tool

production is done mainly by men, the notion that prehistoric stone

tool production was a gender-specific activity seems improbable (Gero

1991). Again, whether or not we can credibly detect gendered struc-

turing of prehistoric lithic variation remains an open question.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 43

Much of the “culture history” of the Stone Age reflects perceived

differences in stone tool designs and production techniques. Using

these variables to construct quasi-historical entities, such as stone

tool industries or archaeological cultures, potentially underestimates

prehistoric toolmakers versatility and behavioral variability. Ethno-

graphic stone-tool-makers vary their production techniques widely

in response to seasonal differences in demands for tools (Thomson

1939) and other factors, including shifts in their cultural landscape (see

Shackley 2000). Many modern-day flintknappers can shift between

widely differing modes of stone tool production (Whittaker 2004).

Behavioral variability is a hallmark of hominin adaptation, particularly

Homo sapiens adaptation (Potts 1998, Shea 2011b, 2011c). It is only

logical to expect that such behavioral variability influenced variation

in the archaeological lithic record from the earliest times onward.

Tool Use

When archaeologists speak of stone tool use, or function, they do

so at differing levels of specificity. At the most basic level archaeol-

ogists often differentiate between “tools” (cores and retouched arti-

facts) and “waste” (unretouched flakes and flake fragments). Numerous

ethnographic studies, however, describe the use of unretouched flakes

(Holdaway and Douglas 2012). Experimental studies verify their utility

(Crabtree and Davis 1968, Jones 1980), and microwear analysis report

evidence for their use in the past (Keeley 1980). This tool/waste

dichotomy projects conventions of industrial-scale mass production

back into the Stone Age.

At a further level of specificity, archaeologists speak of stone tool

use as involving either extractive activities (food acquisition and other

forms of energy capture) or maintenance activities (tool production

and repair) (Binford and Binford 1969). They may also write of

specialized versus multipurpose tools (Odell 1981). These categori-

cal distinctions are also false dichotomies. Butchering an animal can

both acquire food (meat and fat) and tool materials (bone, hide, or

sinew). A tool designed for one narrow purpose can be co-opted

into different purposes as circumstances require. For example, metal

arrowheads used by Southwest African hunter-gatherers are also used

as drills, knives, chisels, and woodworking tools (Wiessner 1983).



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



The expectation of strong form/function correlations among stone

tools is a further obstacle to the development of in archaeological the-

ory about stone tool use (Odell 2001). Many of the names archaeol-

ogists have given to specific artifact-types (such as “scraper,” “burin,”

“projectile point,” and the like) imply specific and consistent modes

of use. This expectation makes sense in terms of present-day tool use.

Most archaeologists live in sedentary societies and work in environ-

ments bristling with specialized tools. In more mobile ethnographic

societies, tool designs place a greater emphasis on portability and func-

tional versatility. Prior to agriculture, all hominin and most human

societies likely practiced land-use strategies involving high residential

mobility. For this reason, functional variability was likely the rule, and

not the exception, for most of prehistory. Among residentially mobile

groups, the main factor that constrains functional variability in stone

tool use is hafting, which removes portions of tool edge from possible

use (Keeley 1982).

Sedentism may have reduced stone tool functional variability (Kelly

1992, Wallace and Shea 2006). Among sedentary groups, or ones

with low residential mobility, fixed residential sites encourage the pro-

duction of heavy specialized tools, such as seed-grinding equipment,

because they are likely to be re-used at those sites. If stable residential

sites were provisioned with large quantities of flaked stone, the wide

range of stone tools’ available sizes and shapes ought to have encour-

aged prospective tool users to select artifacts whose sizes, shapes, and

edge configurations were better fits for particular tasks – leading to

stronger form/function correlations.

Discard/Recycling

Archaeologists have long been aware that reuse and recycling influ-

ence lithic variability, particularly with variability among retouched

tools and cores (Cahen, Keeley, and Van Noten 1979, Dibble 1995,

Frison 1969). Nevertheless, there persists in the archaeological lit-

erature a kind of “finished artifact fallacy,” an assumption that the

forms in which stone tools are preserved in the archaeological record

reflect specific designs held in the minds of their makers (Davidson

and Noble 1993). In contrast, re-use, recycling, and allied phenomena



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS 45

affect nearly every dimension of recent human material culture (Schif-

fer 1987). All but indestructible stone tools persist on exposed surfaces

and in the vicinity of habitation sites, available for use, for more

prolonged periods. If anything, one might expect the effects of recy-

cling/reuse to be even more pronounced among stone tools than in

other dimensions of material culture.

Social and Cultural Aspects of Lithic Variation

In addition to these more pedestrian aspects of lithic technology,

archaeologists have developed interpretive concepts linked to more

esoteric aspects of social identity. Because the technological choices

recent humans make are conditioned by factors relating to their social

context, such as learned patterns of behavior and the social use of

symbols, it is reasonable to expect similar factors to be at work in the

prehistoric lithic record.

Style is a crucial concept in this regard. In its original formulation,

style referred to cultural differences in technological choices, but the

concept has since been parsed into iconological and isochrestic styles

(Sackett 1982). Iconological style refers to information overtly incor-

porated into artifact designs for the purpose of broadcasting a specific

message. Isochrestic style refers to patterned choices among function-

ally equivalent designs arising from learned patterns of behavior. They

are not intended to actively broadcast a symbolic message, but they

can provide clues about cultural similarities and differences among the

people making those choices. Stone tools have the potential for both

iconological and isochrestic stylistic variability. Conspicuous use of

visually distinct exotic raw material might be a plausibly iconological

aspect of stylistic variability. Backing the edge of a flake bifacially, as

opposed to unifacially, might be a plausibly isochrestic style variant.

Hypotheses that one or another stone tool is a stylistic marker of some

prehistoric social entity have to be weighed against the simplicity of

the technology involved and the improbability that identical patterns

of variability could arise independently of one another. These prob-

abilities are intuitively lower in earlier stages of tool production (in

raw material choice and tool fabrication), and higher in later stages

(in tool use and discard/recycling).



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003



Archaeologists read many things into the lithic record – chronicles

of evolutionary progress, landscapes of cultural variation, and patterns

of behavioral variability. At its core, however, the lithic record reflects

variation in the habits of stone tool production and use. Archaeological

lithic analysis seeks to reconstruct those habits and to explain their

variability.



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026314.003


LITHICS BASICS...2 LITHICS BASICS Archaeologists utilize four main sources of information about how...

Documents

Transcript of LITHICS BASICS...2 LITHICS BASICS Archaeologists utilize four main sources of information about how...